TOBACCO REPORT
i964-f965
THE BULLETIN
of the
North Carolina Department of Agriculture
James A. Graham, Commissioner
Number 179 April, 1965
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Flue-Cured Tobacco Outlook, 1965 _ 5
Burley Tobacco Outlook, 1965- g
Estimated Cost for Growing Flue-Cured Tobacco 9
Tobacco Cuality ^q
S;;,f,: Summary, 1964-65.. _.. 14
North Carolina Tobacco Warehouse Sales Report, 1964-65- 16
Summary of Dealer and Warehouse Resales, 1964-65 IS
Producer and Gross Sales of Flue-Cured Tobacco By States, 1964 18
Stabilization Receipts by Belt — 1964 19
Flue-Cured Movement In and Out of North Carolina 19
Burley Movement In and Out of North Carolina 19
North Carolina Flue-Cured Crops, 1919-1964 20
North Carolina Burley Crops, 1928-1964 - 21
North Carolina Flue-Cured Tobacco Allotments, 1965 22
North Carolina Burley Tobacco Allotments, 1965 24
North Carolina Tobacco Warehouses and Operators
By Belts and Markets - 25
Estimated Flue-Cured Exports 31
Domestic Cigarette Consumption By Kinds, 1963 Back Cover
For mauy years flue-cured tobacco
has been the number one crop in North
Carolina. It has accounted for about
two-thirds of the state's income from
crops in recent years, which amounted
to almost one-half of the state's total
agricultural income. With a sound to-
bacco program, tobacco will continue
to be the major source of farm income
in North Carolina.
As your Commissioner of Agricul-
ture, I pledge my support to the wel-
fare of the tobacco farmers and the
future of tobacco in North Carolina.
We must stay ahead with tobacco — ^not
only in the United States, but the
World.
'-^pHX^'j^*^
C^t^.
STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE
James A. Graham, Commissioner
Ex-Officio Chairman
J. Atwell Alexander Stony Point
Thomas 0. Gilmore Julian
HoYLE C. Griffin Monroe
Claude T. Hall Roxboro
Thomas G. Joyner Garysburg
George P. Kittrell . Corapeake
Charles F. Phillips Thomasville
J. H. Poole.. West End
A. B. Slagle ..Franklin
David Townsend. Jr.. Rowland
FOREWORD
This sixteenth annual issue of the Tobacco Report
has been compiled and prepared by W. P. Hedrick and
J. H. Cyrus, tobacco specialists with the Division of
Markets of the North Carolina Department of Agri-
culture, in cooperation with the U. S. Department of
Agriculture under the Research and Marketing Act.
Credit is due the Cooperative Crop Reporting Serv-
ice of the North Carolina and United States Depart-
ments of Agriculture, and the Tobacco Division of the
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service for much of the
statistical data contained herein.
This issue of the Tobacco Report is dedicated to the
future of the tobacco industry which has withstood
many crises in the past and will in the years ahead.
Cy&u^.
Commissioner of Agriculture
For free distribution by the Tobacco Section,
Markets Division, North Carolina Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Raleigh, N. C.
4 6.")-6M
4
Flue-Cured Tobacco Outlook, 1965
It was not unusual or surprising to many North Carolina grow-
ers who placed tobacco on the warehouse floors during the past
season to see several piles, which companies would normally buy,
go to the Stabilization Corporation under the price support pro-
gram.
When the season opened it was evident that tobacco was being
sold on a buyer's market. The Stabilization Corporation held 690
million pounds in storage accumulated from seven previous crops,
1957 through 1963.
As the season progressed the situation went from bad to worse
and by the end of the 1964 season Stabilization Corporation held
on loan 960 million pounds of surplus leaf. Including the stocks
held by Stabilization the total amount of tobacco available from
all sources for 1965 will amount to 3,761 million pounds or about
three times yearly disappearance.
The tobacco acreage control price support program is in trou-
ble, in fact so much trouble that growers, warehousemen, dealers
and manufacturers are groping for ways to make major adjust-
ments in the program that has proved successful for the past 25
years.
Many formulas have been suggested but the one receiving the
most consideration is an acreage-poundage system contained in
a bill introduced in the Congress by Honorable Harold Cooley.
The bill introduced received the support of most of the leadership
in the industry and hearings held on the bill indicate that most
growers would support it in principle.
Regardless of the outcome of the acreage-poundage bill, grow-
ers have already voted, on December 15, 1964, for acreage con-
trol for the years 1965, 1966 and 1967.
On November 27, 1964 the U. S. Department of Agriculture an-
nounced that flue-cured tobacco acreage allotments would be re-
duced by 191/^ percent for 1965. This reduction makes 515,425
acres available for the national allotment. North Carolina grow-
ers will have 340,000 acres. In the referendum flue-cured growers
voted 96yo percent in favor of continuing marketing quotas for
the three-year period.
Under the present law the overall price support level for the
1965 crop will be 57.7 cents per pouud. This represents an ad-
vance in support price of .5 cents per pound over the 1964 sup-
port price.
The financial success of the individual farmer will depend
somewhat on rhe yields per acre produced on each farm under
the present program. However, if the acreage-poundage bill is
passed and put into effect for 1965 the amount of tobacco each
grower can sell will be fixed at a figure determined by the me-
chanics of the law.
The yields per acre for all flue-cured areas combined averaged
a record of 2,203 pounds, 228 pounds above 1963. North Caro-
lina's yield per acre was 2,283 pounds, an increase over 1963 of
284 pounds.
The production in 1965 should be reduced considerably with
the 191^ percent acreage reduction. The amount will c'lcpend on
the growing season, varieties planted and the cultural practices
followed by growers.
North Carolina growers produced 950 million pounds last year
and received $548 million dollars in income for the crop. Steadily
increasing yields have kept a buffer between the individual farm-
er and a program that has steadily cut back his acreage. If the
cut in acres means a cut in income, it will be a new experience
for many growers. But the days of keeping up income with better
yields could be over, even if growing seasons are good. This is
borne out by the fact that most growers are becoming quality
conscious due to criticism leveled at our tobacco by foreign buy-
ers. Most growers are planting recommended and approved seed
varieties, following cultural practices recommended by the State
Extension Service and striving to produce tobacco that has a high
percentage of ripe, light to medium bodied tobacco with good
flavor and aroma and a moderate level of nicotine.
Domestic use of flue-cured tobacco during 1964 has about held
at the 1963 level in spite of a two percent loss in cigarette con-
sumption. This will be the third year that domestic use has re-
mained at about 777 million pounds. It looked at the beginning
of the year that domestic use would be off considerably more,
since cigarette sales were down from 15 to 20 percent during
February and March 1964, following the Surgeon General's Re-
port on Smoking and Health released on January 11. But as the
report was analyzed, and the smoking public realized that noth-
ing new had been discovered from a medical standpoint, sales
began to recover.
I
U. S. smokers consumed 498 billion cigarettes during 1964,
down from 510 billion in 1963. Cigarette consumption should
edge upward some in 1965 and therefore domestic use of flue-
cured should increase slightly in 1965.
The output of smoking tobacco for pipes and roll-your-own cig-
arettes totaled 82 million pounds, or up 16 percent from 1963.
Consumption of smoking tobacco was up sharply following the
Surgeon General's report in the first quarter, but the rate of in-
crease slowed down during the remainder of the year.
Exports of flue-cured tobacco for 1965 are likely to be some-
what smaller than in 1964 when about 465 million pounds were
sent to foreign countries. The expected decline in exports will
likely be caused by a combination of factors; large supplies of
tobacco available in countries which compete with the U. S. in
production, and generally at lower prices than those for U. S.
tobacco. Another factor will be that some countries built up their
stocks of American tobacco during 1964, and the increase in the
manufacture of filter tips which use less tobacco than regular cig-
arettes. There has been considerable publicity in some countries
abroad concerning the smoking health controversy. This has
tended to slow up cigarette manufacture where this has happened
and consequently reduced the purchases of leaf.
The U. S. grower and exporter can expect increasingly severe
competition from other tobacco producing countries whose gov-
ernments need foreign exchange, and it is reasonable to expect
they will make their purchases in countries where tobacco of
acceptable quality can be bought at reasonable prices.
In 1964 the world harvest of flue-cured leaf totaled 3.6 billion
pounds. Rhodesia, India, Japan and Australia had record crops,
raised mainly for export. Canada was the only flue-cured pro-
ducer that showed a decline in production. Rhodesia in recent
years has enjoyed booming sales of flue-cured leaf, especially to
the United Kingdom, West Germany, the Netherlands, Hong
Kong and Japan. All these countries have been important mark-
ets for U. S. flue-cured, and sales of Rhodesian tobacco will doubt-
less affect the level of U. S. trade with these countries.
The overall outlook for flue-cured tobacco for 1965 is that grow-
ers can expect a drop in income due to acreage cut, the intro-
duction of an acreage-poundage program for 1966, some down-
ward trend in the surplus tobacco held by the Stabilization,
increased excise taxes on cigarettes in many states and improve-
ment in the general tobacco situation during 1966.
Burley Tobacco Outlook, 1965
1964 was one of the worst crop years since 1960 for the 18,000
burley growers in western North Carolina. The growers experi-
enced hot, dry weather during most of the growing season, re-
sulting in production of only 21.5 million pounds of tobacco.
Quality of the crop was a little below normal which was reflect-
ed in the amount of cash received — $12.5 million.
The burley crop over the entire belt was below normal in qual-
ity and the stabilization price support pools received 111 million
pounds from the crop.
Supplies of burley have reached an all time high of 2,043 mil-
lion pounds, or 3.5 years supply.
During the year 1964 the domestic use of burley was 514 mil-
lion pounds, 17 million below 1963 and the first downturn in six
years. The decline in 1964 of domestic use was greater than ex-
pected, although cigarette consumption also declined a smaller
percentage than leaf use.
The 1965 acreage allotment will be reduced another 10 percent,
according to the Secretary of Agriculture, and a referendum was
held on February 25. North Carolina growers approved the 10
percent acreage reduction and marketing quotas for the next
three years by a vote of 99.2 percent in favor.
The overall price support level for the 1964 burley crop was
58.9 cents per pound and the 1965 price support will increase .6
to 59.5 cents per pound.
While exports of burley have never been very large they have
been setting records in recent years. During 1964 exports reach-
ed 57 million pounds, which was four million above 1963. Eleven
countries received over 80 percent of the burley tobacco exported.
West Germany, Egypt and Sweden were the main buyers.
Burley growers are receiving competition by some foreign
countries in the production of tobacco for export. Rhodesia,
Greece, Mexico and Japan have increased their production, hop-
ing to enter the market on a price advantage.
The United States burley growers have a big quality advantage
and it is likely that our growers will maintain their share of the
world market for some time to come.
I
Estimated Cost For Growing Flue-Cured
Tobacco*
Items
1,800 Pounds
Per Acre Yield
2,500 Pounds
Your Farm
Sales @ 60 cents per
pound (tied tobacco)
$1 080 00
$1,500.00
$ 5.40
4.30
2.50
4.40
.30
10.00
5.10
2.00
12.50
12.00
33.84
8.84
12.00
4.90
60.00
30.65
15.50
45.00
264.25
15.98
9.00
15.02
573.48
78.47
34.07
24.83
Plantbed expenses
Pumigant
$ 5.40
4.30
Fertilizer .._
Tobacco seed
-.-.- 2.50
4.40
.30
Blue-mold treatment
Insecticide -.- __
Plantbed cloth _
10.00
5.10
-- 2.00
- 12.50
10.00
, 31.02
5.84
10.00
-- 3.50
- - 45.00
30.65
Gastight cover
Field expenses
Cover crop seed _ _
Soil fumigation _
Field insect control
Fertilizer
Topdressing .
Sucker control
Twine
Fuel Oil
Insurance, tobacco
Insurance, barn
...- 15.50
32.40
-- 192.75
15.98
. - .. 9 00
Marketing
Hired labor .
Tractor, operator
Truck
Irrigation .
— - - 448.14
48.20
Total variable expenses
Fixed expenses
Depreciation
Interest
23.15
Repairs
-. 17.55
15.43
1.25
Insurance
22.71
Taxes
1.85
Other machines
39.21
144.79
$ 487.07
39.21
Total fixed expenses
201.14
Net revenue
$ 725.38
♦Ciiurtcsy of rrngressive Furmer Flue-Cured Tobacco Supplement, .\pril. UiBo.
Tobacco Quality
The principal things that make flue-cured tobacco quality are
variety, soil, climate and cultural practices or know-how. North
Carolina tobacco growers have an abundance of all.
Why then is it said that the quality of the tobacco being pro-
duced today has declined significantly when compared with to-
bacco they were producing prior to World War II ?
Most of the quality problems started in 1952, when the first
health attack was leveled at cigarettes and filter tips began to
sell at a rapid rate. Prior to filters, every grower in the produc-
ing area could judge his crop from a quality standpoint and al-
most tell you what company would buy each grade from a given
crop. There was a sharp distinction between the grades bought
by domestic buyers and those grades bought by foreign buyers.
The buying patterns of the companies first began to change
during the mid 1950's. Traditionally, domestic buyers had bought
The grower sorts and grades his tobacco based on his knowledge and skill.
10
I
The U. S. tobacco grader has a system based somewhat on stalk position.
tobacco with lighter bodied texture than the foreign buyer, but
with the increased use of filters by American smokers, the do-
mestic companies dipped over into the foreign types in order to
get l^avor and aroma to the smoker through the filter.
At this point, the question of what is quality began to plague
the tobacco growers. Should he strive to produce tobacco of hea-
vy bodied texture or continue to plant old line varieties that had
proved desirable to the buyers through the years? Fate made
the decision for him with the discovery of tobacco plant diseases
on the farms. Granville wilt, black shank and many others made
it clear that to continue to produce tobacco, disease resistant va-
rieties would have to be used.
Tobacco seed breeders developed several disease resistant va-
rieties that have kept growers in the flue-cured area of the South-
east in business. These disease resistant varieties, which tol-
erate a high level of fertilization, have enabled tobacco growers
to almost double the yield per acre in the past 10 years.
In the meantime, consumer preference in the type and kind of
cigarettes, and technological changes in the manufacturing of
tobacco products, have changed the long understood term of qual-
11
ity in the raw product to a new definition known to the buyer
as usability.
The tobacco grower at present is going through the stage of
trying to learn and understand what the domestic and foreign
buyer means by usability. At a recent meeting of tobacco grow-
ers, one domestic buyer tried to explain the changes in the usage
along the following lines.
Over a period of years the preference of American cigarette
smokers has changed perceptibly in the direction of a milder
product. In the case of cigarettes, this trend has been abetted
by the widely publicized health charges over the past 10 years
and promulgation of the idea that the health hazard is related
to the amount of nicotine and tar in the smoke. The average
amount of nicotine in the smoke of five leading brands of cigar-
ettes has been reduced by half over the past 10 years.
Manufacutrers have accomplished this reduction in nicotine
content of the smoke by selection of usable grades of tobacco,
blending and use of filters. The American public has been edu-
cated to accept a lower amount of nicotine in the cigarette but
they still want good taste, full aroma, and full smoke flavor. In
buying tobacco on the warehouse floor, all buyers are purchasing
grades with low nicotine content, yet with full aroma and smoke
flavor.
A third and important definition of quality is placed on flue-
cured tobacco by the United States Department of Agriculture,
Tobacco Division, whereby tobacco placed on the warehouse floor
is inspected before sale and a U. S. Government grade placed
upon each pile. The U. S. Tobacco Inspector is a highly trained,
skilled judge of tobacco who uses a system of grades based main-
ly on the position that tobacco grows on the stalk. These grades
are used to identify stalk position, quality, color, and to substan-
tiate the support price used by the Commodity Credit Corpora-
tion price support program.
The grading system used by the Government to identify qual-
ity has been in effect many years and most growers are fairly
familiar with its use. Therefore, the grower has to know these
three methods of grading ; his own, based on empirical judgment ;
the companies' based on usability ; and the Government's based
on stalk position.
So what is tobacco quality? There are many things that enter
into quality. Some of these are obvious. Others are difficult to
understand and even more difficult to describe. Tobacco qual-
12
The company buyer bases his judgment on usability.
ity is a very real thing, the most important factor in the accept-
ability of a cigarette. Therefore, to meet the quality problem,
growers are planting recommended and approvel seed varieties,
following cultural practices recommended by the Extension Serv-
ice, and striving to produce a crop that has a high percentage of
ripe light-to-medium bodied tobacco with good flavor and aroma
and a moderate level of nicotine. They are presenting each lot
in fairly well sorted baskets and letting the buying companies
determine the quality.
13
State Summary 1964-65
North Carolina flue-cured farmers experienced one of their beat years
on record during the 1964 marketing season, with their gross income fall-
ing only one million dollars short of the all time record high income re-
ceived in 1962. However, there was a slight drop in average price, which
indicates that the boost in gross income was due primarily to a record
increase in average yield per acre of 284 pounds over the previous year.
This increase in yield more than offset the 10 percent reduction in acreage
for 1964. In fact, North Carolina production was 3.2 percent, or 29 mil-
lion pounds, more in 1964 than the previous year even with the 10 percent
cut in acreage.
The general quality of the 19 64 crop, using the U. S. Standard Grades
as a guage, was slightly inferior to the previous year. There was a sub-
stantial increase in the amount of tobacco grading into the unripe var-
iegated grades (KL) (KF) (KV) (KM), and a proportionate drop in the
percentage of the crop grading into the mature and fully ripe straight
grades. However, there was an improvement in smoking qualities in some
areas, which was reflected by higher prices and a stronger market demand.
A summary of the 1964 marketing season in North Carolina shows that
the 44 flue-cured markets sold 899,347,616 pounds of tobacco for farmers,
which returned to growers selling on North Carolina markets $519,672,-
463. This gave them a 1964 season average price of $57.78 per hundred.
In 1963 growers sold 872,597,600 pounds for a return of $509,905,929,
giving them a season average of $58.40. This was the third consecutive
year that the avergae price of flue-cured tobacco has shown a decline, even
though the support price moved up one percent in each of those three
years. Nevertheless, growers received $9,766,544 more in 1964 for tobac-
co sold on North Carolina markets, due primarily to an increase of 26.76S,-
016 in the pounds of tobacco sold during the 1964 season.
Price support was available on untied grades of primings and lugs and
best nondescript from those grades during the first seven days of sale in
all belts. All markets observed a four-day sales week during the last eight
weeks of the flue-cured season, because of congestion in redrying facilities.
Type 13 — The 1964 marketing season began in North Carolina on Au-
gust 6 with the opening of the Border Belt. The quality of offerings in
this belt was slightly lower than the previous year because of an increase
in poor and low quality leaf of a variegated color. Most grades of prim-
ings and lugs showed gains over the previous year ranging from $1 to $.3
per hundred. Losses on leaf grades were about equal to gains on primings
and lugs.
North Carolina markets in this belt sold 165,688,468 pounds for farmers
in 1964, returning to them $97,646,067, which gave them a season average
of $58.93 per hundred. In 1963 growers selling in this belt sold 166,160,-
612 pounds for $99,768,328, averaging $60.04 for the season.
Final sales were held in the Border Belt on October 15 after operating
for 43 sale days. This made the 1964 season 10 days shorter than the
previous year.
14
Type 12 — The 17 Eastern Belt markets started 1964 sales on August
27, about one week later than the previous year. The quality of offerings
was lower compared with the previous year due primarily to an increase
in the volume of leaf tobacco placed in variegated grades. About two-
thirds of the grades offered showed declines in prices ranging from $1 to
$6 per hundred. Stabilization receipts were the highest on record for this
belt.
The 1964 producer sales, dollar value and average price in this belt
showed the following declines compared with the previous year. Volume
of sales was 420,093,250 pounds, compared to 421,882,034 in 1963. The
dollar value of $238,216,548 compared to $247,680,810 the previous year.
The market average was $56.71 compared to $58.71 in 1963.
Sales in the Eastern Belt were completed on November 19, giving this
belt an auction season of 49 sale days compared with 57 days in 1963.
Type IIB — The 10 Middle Belt markets opened for the 1964 season on
September 10, which was only one day later than the 19 63 opening date.
The quality of offerings in this belt showed improvement over the previous
year with a smaller percentage of nondescript and poor leaf. There was
also a sharp increase in the amount of ripe desirable smoking tobacco.
The 1964 volume and dollar value of producer sales in the Middle Belt
were at an all time record high. Growers received $104,985,097 from the
sales of 177,578,510 pounds of tobacco with a season average of $59.12
per hundred. In 1963 these growers sold 165,337,354 pounds for a return
of $95,051,596, averaging only $57.49.
The Middle Belt completed the 1964 season on December 3, selling only
4S days compared with 59 days in 1963.
Type 11 A — The nine North Carolina Old Belt markets started 1964
sales on September 24, one day later than the 1963 opening. The quality
of the Old Belt offerings improved considerably over the previous year with
less tobacco grading into poor quality grades, and a marked increase in
smoking leaf and cutters.
The Old Belt also set a new record in volume of sales and dollar value
during the 1964 season. This record year resulted in producer sales of
135,987,388 pounds, which returned growers $78,824,751 for a season
average of $57.96 per hundred. In 1963 growers sold 119,199,600 pounds
for $67,405,195, averaging $56.55 per hundred.
Pinal sales were held in the North Carolina Old Belt on December 17.
This was an auction season of 50 sale days compared with 56 in 1963.
Type 31 — North Carolina Burley Markets at Asheville, Boone and West
Jefferson opened for the 1964-65 season November 30, 1964. The quality
of offerings showed very little overall change from the previous year. How-
ever, there was a slight decrease in the percentage of leaf and lug grades
and an increase in the proportion of flyings and tips. About 15 percent of
the gross sales in North Carolina was placed under government loan.
There was a decline in the volume of producer sales and in dollar value
due to the 10 percent reduction in acreage in 1964. Producer sales drop-
ped to 18,591,150 pounds, averaging $56.87 per hundred, which returned
growers $10,572,368. In 1963 growers received $12,139,689 from the
sale of 22,824,882 pounds of tobacco, averaging $53.19 per hundred.
Final sales were held in the North Carolina burley area January 15.
1965. There were 2-2 sale days during the season compared to 26 sale
days the previous year.
15
I
OO T-1 lO iH I
c
o
Ui
U
O
1-1 '^ T-( t- OS ir- 1
I "^ CC -H !
< o cr> 00 "* o O' o <
T-H ,H ,-H 6S1 ,-H !
' tH LO (M rH T-H i-H iH (
O
a
o
_®
O
o
3
O
o
o
u
u
O
JQ
O
I-
D
C
o
u
o
z
H ==.
C- iH fr^ t> oo O
o
o
Si
CO cq US i>- oi w
C<1 OS CD rH CC ■*
CO OO OO O CO t-
i
fis
s
Q
H
K
a
O
^
CD CO M C-l Tt- 00
J^
en
g
U5 CO '^ CO C^3 OO
»
o
Hi
Oi CO lO CO t- OO
CO
1
J3 CO iH ■rH O '^
1
FH ^
CO O lO t> t>0 OO
CO
eg
H
^ w
T— ( Tf (M
CJ
•^
h^
E^
tH
M
P3
03
rr;
^
^
K
PS oo
-^ T-H OO T-H '■f O
■^
s?
U o
in> Oi o CO 00 o
r-
<
i^ ift CD u:; IC <D
iO
vo
S
"* CO tH <
■Sli C t! o >- <D
(C^CftMOC^OSOC-3T— It— iCDOOi'
t W C- CSI iH t^ frq U5 (m' CO ■^* i-H O csT I
(i-HW^CDlOTHinCqw.-(i-HTHWI
a) o «
B o ■
•^ ° r. g - -
a; o 0) "'-
^ c c
•a .5 o .
'CoQfc.OOtiJrtWMHI
OOO-^tfiOlOr-CC
mioicirsiOLnirsiCL
•a w
■^
to Tt* O CO Cq O «D
■^ -* C^ to rH OO W
eg Oi eg o:, C^q CO O
S
CO 00 00 -* 00
in to U3 OS in CO
Tf ^ C^ CO rH
^
'^
00
S
00 o
s?
■3:1 ir- CO oi in CO oo
iH 00 eg c- c-
OS
m CO t^ c- th 00
M C- CO ■* tH CD
S
CO
t-
o in
"
(N Ol t* rH 00 C^
<M C^^ eg rH rH
00 to t~ ^ ^
tH
CD
in
(>•'
s
CO O ^ I
iH -^^ eg fi
00 10* c-^ c
> rj^ eg TjH Tt^
> t> CO t>^ 00'
! in in in in
O t- rH Kh
00 ■*" in CO
in in in i o
S w S S "^ '^ °° ^ "" ""
CO
> TYPE 11 A
10,624,608
8,067,312
11,225,030
6,232,678
12,261,850
13,076,380
13,507,151
8,975,464
63,540,402
10
CO
w
595,6
753,4
278,3
230,5
157,9
530,9
758,3
085,2
852,7
141,2
M
2'°5;'^ = g^^oM
I 00 eg Tt* I
I CO 00 o> I
O <M 00 1-1 C
o
|£!
K
is
"> U o 00 to (
OT H S rt t^ i
10 P m" ,_,',_,■.
O H t- CO CO c
00 [i, c~ c-j to c
&
n
inooiTPotoosincDoi |<?q H
tgeoi-icooscot-cocgcg i-i h^
§ in in to in CD in i
M C^^ ffq <
t3 coco.
M oo'io'i
) th 01 o^ CKi in CO crs
C^ t- t> CO CO o" <M
C^] W tH C^ rH tH
* bo S i " ^ M
I Cq to It- o t-
>t>inocotDoo*^co
) f- o CD rH cq Sg'oo to'
tH rH tH T-l in
, .. o) o 'S o 2 ^
3,S£t5 - -
> «
J3 O
Summary of N. C. Dealer and Ware-
house Resales- -1964
Percentage
]}glt Pounds Dollars Resales
Border Belt
Dealer 3,965,801
Warehouse 10,286,287
Eastern Belt
Dealer 6,744,878
AVarehouse 12,232,028
Middle Belt
Dealer 4,564,450
Warehouse 7,241,536
Old Belt
Dealer 2,868,808
Warehouse 8,654,679
Total Flue-Cured Resales 56,558.467
Burley Belt
Dealer 862,934
Warehouse 1,923,532
1,839,713
2.2
5,621,661
5.7
3,089,557
1.5
5,821,800
2.8
2,270,687
2.4
3,884,778
3.8
1,351,292
1.9
5,047,829
5.9
28,927,317
5.9
477,718
4.0
1,052',083
9.0
1,529,801
13.0
Total Burley Resales 2,786,466
Producer and Gross Sales of Flue-Cured
Tobacco by States-- 1964
Producer Sales Gross Sales
Stale Pounds Average Pounds Average
N. C. 899,347,616 $57.78 955,906,083 $57.39
Va. 178,290,031 60.26 186,411,732 59.90
S. C. 143,483,632 60.48 158,251,141 59.98
Ga. 138,2'15,490 59.13 152,053,610 58.62
Pla. 19,812,833 58.82 22,32'9,519 58.67
Total 1,379,149,602 $58.53 1,474,952,085 $58.13
18
Stabilization Receipts By Belts- -1964
Producer Stabirization Percentage
"*"' Type Sales (lbs.) Receip ts (lbs.) Stab. Received
Old Belt llA 314,277,419 71,069.570 22.6
Middle Belt IIB 177,578,510 38,843,232 21.9
Eastern Belt 12' 420,093,250 125,306,100 29.8
Border Belt 13 309,172,100 46,540,394 15.0
Ga.-Fla. Belt 14 158,028,323 3,031,168 1.9
Total 11-14 1,379,149,602 284,790,464 20.6
Flue-Cured Movement In and Out of
North Carolina
N. C. Tobacco Sold Out of State Out of State Tobacco Sold in N C.
(Poun'fs) (Pounds)
^*"° 1964 1963 1964 1963
Va. 53,991,402 52,673,176 11,119,919 9,555,702
S. C. 14,828,958 13,630,293 13,426,523 15.622,569
Ga. 2,480,800 3,500,202
Fla. 80,938 157,453
Ala.
1.332 1.544
Total 71,382,098 69,961,127 24,547.774 25,179,815
Burley Tobacco Movement In and Out
of North Carolina
State
N. C. Tobacco
(PC
1964
Sold Out of State
)unds)
1963
Out of State Tobacco Sold in N. C.
(Pounds)
1964 1963
Tenn.
Va.
— 4,796,310
2 238
5,640,894
2,030
1,265,042
1,787,596
30,710
52,280
1,724
1,357,670
1.851,325
34,396
41,924
768
W. Va.
Ga.
S. C.
Total
— 4,798,548
5,642,924
3,137,352
3,286,083
19
North" Carolina Flue-Cured Crops
1919-1964*
yield Per
No. Acres Acre Production Value Average
(Pounds) (1,000 lbs.) (1,000 Dollars) Price
1919
521,000
612
319,276
$157,340
$49.30
1920
621,900
681
423,703
88,271
20.80
1921
414,900
594
246,540
60,402
24.50
1922
444,000
611
271,170
74,572
27.50
1923
544,300
728
396,354
81,998
20.70
1924
473,500
585
276,819
62,597
22.60
1925
536,200
696
373,352
83,756
22.40
1926
546,700
692
378,274
96,762
25.60
1927
639,600
755
482,982
100,414
20.80
1928
712,400
692
493.132
93,450
19.00
1929
729,300
665
484,630
89,470
18.50
1930
768,000
757
581,200
74,733
12.90
1931
688,500
692
476,382
42,024
8.S0
1932
462,500
624
288,750
34,949
12.10
1933
667,800
794
530,133
85,530
16.10
1934
486,500
847
412,055
117,999
28.60
1935
612,500
635
572,625
116,418
20.30
1936
591,000
765
451,975
101,856
22.50
1937
675,000
883
595,815
143,058
24.00
1938
603,500
844
509,470
115,428
22.70
1939
843,000
964
812,540
123,893
15.20
1940
498,000
1,038
516,835
85.792
16.60
1941
488,000
928
452,825
132,291
29.20
1942
539.000
1,052
566,810
221,538
39.10
1943
580,000
935
542,200
219,074
40.40
1944
684.000
1,077
736,990
317,628
43.10
1945
722,000
1,100
794,310
349,148
44.00
1946
802,000
1,138
912,970
451,639
49.50
1947
783,000
1,139
892,205
374,513
42.00
1948
594,000
1,239
739,380
368,040
49.80
1949
621,000
1,178
731,530
352.508
48.20
1950
640,000
1,441
858,140
477,508
55.60
1951
735,000
1.331
978,375
523,358
53.50
1952
735,000
1,222
898,090
448.582
49.90
1953
674,000
1,235
832,305
447,076
53.70
1954
686,000
1,204
889,490
483,003
54.30
1955
653,000
1,499
978,775
520,845
53.20
1956
579,000
1,661
961,495
496,324
51.60
1957
443,000
1,469
650.780
358.442
55.10
1958
429,000
1,718
736,855
427.307
58.00
1959
458,500
1,533
702.942
407,055
57.90
1960
457,500
1,836
839,870
512.731
61.10
1961
463,000
1,797
832,215
541,468
65.10
1962
483,000
1,890
912,810
549,594
60.20
1963
460,500
1,999
920,660
535.622
58.18
1964**
416,000
2,283
949,850
548,555
57.75
•Source: N. C. and USDA Crop Reporting Service.
•Preliminary for 1964.
20
North Carolina Burley Crops
1928-1964*
No. Acres Acre Production Value Average
(Pounds) (1,000 lbs.) (1,000 DoUars) Price
1928
3,600
650
2,340
$ 690
$29.50
1929
5,500
730
4.015
863
21.50
1930
7,200
750
5,400
853
15.80
1931
7,100
710
5,041
464
9.20
1932
6,500
735
4,778
726
15.20
1933
9,200
785
7,222
715
9.90
1934
5,500
870
4,785
809
17.50
1935
5,200
925
4.810
1,025
21.30
1936
6,000
900
5,400
2,095
38.80
1937
9,000
975
8,775
1,787
21.40
1938
8,600
900
7,740
1,308
16.90
1939
8,100
1,070
8,667
1,447
16.70
1940
6,500
1,050
6,825
1,242
18.20
1941
6,200
1,075
6,665
2,093
31.40
1942
6,600
1,150
7,590
3,211
42.30
1943
8,500
1,225
10,412
5,102
49.00
1944
12.000
1,390
16,680
8,157
48.90
1945
13,000
1,500
19,500
7.568
38.30
1946
9,800
1,475
14,455
5,999
41.50
1947
9,600
1,560
14,976
6,335
42.30
1948
10,300
1,680
17,304
8,012
46.30
1949
10,800
1,440
15,552
6,750
43.40
1950
10,500
1,700
17,850
9,175
51.40
1951
12,200
1,750
21,350
11,572
54.20
1952
12,000
1,680
20,160
9,818
48.70
1953
11,400
1,800
20,520
11,019
53.70
1954
12,700
1,920
24,384
12,680
52.00
1955
9,800
1,900
18,620
10,651
57.20
1956
9,400
1,850
17,390
10,747
61.80
1957
9,600
1,975
18,960
11.073
58.40
1958
9,300
2,000
18.600
11.978
64.40
1959
9,800
2,060
20,188
11.426
56.60
1960
9,500
1,940
18.430
12.016
65.20
1961
10,400
2,090
21.736
14,346
66.00
1962
11,000
2,185
24,035
14.421
60.00
1963
11,000
2,285
25.135
13,573
54.00
1964**
9,800
2.200
21,560
12,505
58.00
♦Source: N. C. and USnA Crop Reporting Service
'Preliminary for 1364 with value b.ised on market average.
21
N. C. Flue-Cured Tobacco Allotments
1965
County No. Farms
Alamance 1,421
Alexander 945
Anson 258
Beaufort 2,326
Bertie 1,686
Bladen 3,142
Brunswick 1,703
Burke 1
Cabarrus 1
Caldwell 261
Camden 2
Carteret 334
Caswell 1.927
Catawba 4
Chatham 1.054
Chowan 184
Cleveland 1
Columbus 4,662
Craven 1.669
Cumberland 2,387
Dare 1
Davidson 1,815
Davie 842
Duplin 4,213
Durham 942
Edgecombe 1,453
Forsyth 2,235
Franklin 2,670
Gaston 1
Gates 124
Granville 2,150
Greene 1,2'20
Guilford 3,148
Halifax 2,095
Harnett 3,250
Hertford 914
Hoke 748
(redell 812
Johnston 5,176
Jones 888
hce 1.286
Acreage
Allotment
Rank
3,375.50
37
967.39
50
282.49
61
6,838.14
21
4,071.36
32
5,317.28
2S
2,367.66
41
0.41
69
0.02
73
343.56
59
3.34
66
966.03
51
6,591.30
23
2.94
65
2,056.33
46
392.28
58
0.25
70
11,848.64
7
6,106.00
24
3,825.99
34
0.05
72
2',335.45
44
835.55
53
11,088.65
S
2,693.26
39
8,249.02
16
3,467.69
35
8,179.32
IS
3.29
67
194.51
62
9,579.79
13
8,596.74
15
6,505.11
22
4,228.14
31
10,362.91
U
2,337.70
4 5
1,834.7S
47
874.28
5 2
16,349.62
2
3,901.61
33
2.945.40
3S
22
N. C. Flue-Cured Tobacco Allotments
1965 (Continued)
County 2fo. Farms
Lenoir l_g4g
Martin 1 443
Mecklenburg 1
Montgomery 40g
Moore 1^548
Nash ^ 2,842
New Hanover g4
Northampton 215
Onslow 1 773
Orange '939
Pamlico ^ 374
Pender 1^629
Person 1^33
Pitt 2,608
Randolph 1 603
Richmond _ 953
Robeson 4 561
Rockingham 2 978
Rowan 33
Sampson 5050
Scotland 527
Stokes 2,766
Surry 3073
Tyrrell ^
Vance 1385
Wake 3 661
Warren 1809
Washington g'SO
Wayne 3031
Wilkes
942
Wilson 2,065
"•■"dkin - 2,697
State Total 114,828
Allotment
Rank
10,092.95
12
6,119.55
25
0.08
71
693.44
56
3,511.31
36
13,000.66
5
152.60
63
342.59
60
4,471.88
29
2,365.21
40
" 786.59
55
2,354.77
43
6,899.58
20
18,115.85
1
2,338.87
42
1.492.57
48
14,840.20
3
9,361.41
14
20.62
6 4
10,951.55
3
824.89
54
8,224.15
17
7,851.90
19
0.16
6S
5,879.96
26
13,942.75
4
4,375.84
3)
689.43
57
10,421.39
10
1,105.25
49
12,110.28
fi
5,783.03
27
339,041.09
1-73
23
!
N. C. Burley Allotments
1965
Acreage
County ^0- Faims Allotment.
Alleghany 530
Ashe 2,523
Avery 2'45
Brunswick 1
Buncombe 3,068
Burke 12
Caldwell 22
Catawba 3
Cherokee 206
Clay 214
Cleveland 9
Davidson 3
Gaston 1
Graham 699
Granville 1
Haywood 2,055
Henderson 115
Iredell 3
Jackson 310
Lincoln 1
McDowell 87
Macon 246
Madison 2,875
Mitchell 943
Polk 6
Rutherford 62
Stokes 2
Surry 7
Swain 227
Transylvania 72
Watauga 1,649
Wilkes 24
Yancey 1,838
State Totals 18,059
USIM Af!rl(-\illnre Slabillzatio
227.95
9
1,116.23
3
115.29
11
0.09
33
1,557.13
2
4.67
21
7.65
20
0.92
28
70.45
15
86.76
12
3.39
23
1.32
26
0.50
29
332.03
8
0.12
3 2
1,070.27
5
46.05
16
1.45
25
123.71
10
0.30
31
27.97
IS
79.13
13
2,371.03
1
505. 6S
7
1.75
24
27.60
19
0.34
3(1
0.94
27
73.87
14
31.00
17
781.22
6
4.11
22
1,086.41
4
24
North Carolina Tobacco Warehouses
and Operators By Belts and Markets
BORDER BELT
Cliadbuui'ii lone set buyers)
Producers— Jack W. Garrett, J. Franklin Bullard
Green-Teachey — J. C. Green
Clarkton (one set buyers)
Bright Leaf — Joe Stephenson & Brothers
New Clarkton Warehouse— J. M. Talley, J. C. Hartley
Fail- Bliitt (one set buyers)
Powell— A. H. Powell & Sons
Littleton's — Sidney Wise, J. C. McNeil
Planters— Carl Meares, Ken Ray. Tom Lewis
Fairmont (four sets buyers)
People's Big 5— E. J. Chambers. Yarboro & Garrett Company
Davis & Mitchell Davis— F. A. Davis, Harry & Jack Mitchell "
Holliday-Frye— E. H. Prye, J. W. and J. M. Hollidav
Planters No. 1 & 2— G. R. Royster. Daniel
Square Deal 1-2-3— W. C. Bassett
Star Carolina 1-2-3— W. M. Puckett, A. M. Best
Liberty-Twin States— P. R. Floyd, Jr., Paul Wilson, F. P. Joyce, Joe
Big Brick — V. J. Griffin, A. D. Lewis, Jr.
Payetteville (one set buyers)
Big Farmers 1 & 2— P. L. Campbell, Sherrill Aiken
Planters— J. W. Stephenson, J. C. Adams
Liimberton (three sets buyers)
Carolina — J. L, Townsend, James Johnson
Smith-Dixie — Furman Biggs, Sr. & Jr.
Hedgpeth— R. A. Hedgpeth, R. L. Rollins
Liberty — R. H. Livermore
Star, Inc— Hogan Teater, D. T. Stephenson
Lumberton Cooperative— C. E. McLaurin, Mgr.
Tabor City (one set buyers)
V^:^^ ''';°""^,^ ^«* Farmers-R. C. Coleman. Mrs. Harriet Sikes
Planters — Don Watson, Mgr.
AVhiteville (three sets buyers)
Crutchfield— G. E. & R. w. Crutchfield
Lea's Big Dixie— William Townes Lea, Louie Love
Moore's— A. H. Moore, C. C. Mason, C. F Jeffcoat
Nelson's No. 1 & 2— John H. Nelson, Jim Smith
Planters No. 1 & 2— A. O. King, Jr., J. W Peay
Gray-Neal Farmers-Columbus County— A. Dail Gray, J L Neal
Liberty— J. W. Hooks, L A. Barefoot & Sons
Smith— Ernest Smith, Joe T. Smith. Jr., Percy McKeithan
25
EASTERN BEIiT
Ahoskie (one set buyers)
Basnight No. 1-2-3 — L. L. Wllkens, H. G. Veazey
Farmers No. 1 & 2 — AV. M. Odoms, Pierce & Winborne
Clinton (one set buyers)
Carolina — L. D. Herring, C. J. Strickland
Ross No. 2 — Guy R. Ross
Farmers — H. A. Carr, J. J. Hill, W. W. Buck
Dunn (one set buyers)
Big 4 Warehouse — Tom Smothers, Jack Calhoun, Norman Hardee
Planters — Leland Lee, .1. M. Smothers
Farmville (two sets buyers)
Bell's — Bell Brothers
Farmers — John N. Fountain, Mgr.
Monks — John N. Fountain, Mgr.
Planters & Prewits — Chester Worthingtou, W. A. Newell, B. S. Cor-
rell & C. Prewit
Lee's — Gordon Lee
Goldsboro (one set buyers)
Carolina — S. G. Best, D. V. Smith, D. Price
Farmers No. 1 — S. B. Hill, Carl Holloman, J. F. Hill
Big Brick — J. R. Musgrave
Victory — Richard Gray, Clarence Whitley
Greenville (five sets buyers)
Cannon's — W. T. Cannon, Carlton Dail
Formers — W. A. Tripp, Dal Cox, T. P. Thompson
Star-Planters — Harding Suggs, B. B. Suggs, L. J. Hill
McGowan's — J. A. Worthington, Jack Woye
Keel — Ashley Wynne, Floyd McGowan
New Independent — Bob CuUipher, F. L. Blount
Raynor-Forbes — Noah Raynor, A. H. Forbes
Harris & Rogers — R. E. Rogers
New Carolina — Larry Hudson, Laddie Avery
Kinston (four sets buyers)
Central — W. I. Herring, Bill King
Farmers — John T. Jenkins
Kinston Cooperatives — S. W. Smith, Mgr.
New Dixie — John T. Jenkins, Mgr.
Sheppard No. 1 — J. T. Sheppard
Sheppard No. 2 — J. T. Sheppard
New Central — W. I. Herring, Bill King
The Star Warehouse No. 2 — Dempsey Hodges
Banner — K. W. Loftin, John Heath
Brooks Warehouse — Roger Brooks, Jr.. Frederick Brooks
Knotts New Warehouse — H. G. Knott. W. E. Brewer
Hoborsonville (one set buyers)
Adkins & Bailey — J. H. Gray, Jack Sharpe
Red Front— J. H. Gray, Jack Sharpe
Planters No. 1 & 2 — H. T. Highsmith. E. G. Anderson
26
liockj Mount (four sets buyers)
Cobb & Carlton No. 1 & 2 — W. E. Cobb, J. C. Carlton
Mangum — Roy M. Phipps
Planters No. 1-2-3 — W. H. Faulkner, Mgr.
Smith No. 1 & 2 — James D. Smith
Works Warehouse — R. J. Works, Jr.
Peoples Warehouse Company, Inc.— Guy Barnes, Gene Simmons
Farmers Warehouse, Inc. — J. C. Holt Evans, Mgr.
Fenner.? — J. B. Fenner
Siiiithfield (two sets buyers)
Big Planters — Mrs. W. A. Carter, Paul McMillan
Farmers No. 1 & 2 — Joe & C. E. Stephenson
Gold Leaf No. 1 & 2 — R. A. Pearce
Perkins Riverside — N. L. Perkins
Wallace No. 1 & 2 — Lawrence and Dixon Wallace
Skinner's — Prank Skinner
Tarboro (one set buyers)
Clarks No. 1 & 2 — H. I. Johnson, S. A. McConkey
Farmers No. 1 — W. L. House, J. P. Bunn
Farmers No. 2 — W. L. House, J. P. Bunn
Victory No. 1 & 2— Cliff Weeks, W. L. Leggett
Wallace (one set buyers)
Blanchard & Farrior — O. C. Blanchard, W. H. Farrior
Hussey No. 1 & 3 — Joe Bryant, Bill Hussey
Sheffield's — John Sheffield
Farmers — H. G. Perry
Washington (one set buyers)
Sermon's No. 1 — W. J. Sermons, J. E. Roberson
Sermon's No. 2'— W. J. Sermons, J. E. Roberson
Talley-Hasaell 1 & 2 — M. M. Hassell, W. G. Talley
Wendell (one set buyers)
Farmers — Roy Clark, Jr.
Liberty 1 & 2 — Bubber & Berdon Eddins
Northside — G. Dean
Banner — C. P. Southland, Isaac Medlin
Wilson (five sets buyers)
Big Dixie— E. B. Hicks, W. C. Thompson
Wainwright — G. L. Wainwright
Center Brick No. 1-2-3— Cozart & Eagles Co.
Farmers — J. J. Gibbons, S. G. Deans
Grower.? Cooperative — S. E. Griffin, Mgr.
New Planters No. 1 & 2— R. T. & W. C. Smith, B. S. Carr
Smith Warehouse, Inc. — H. H. Harris, Jr., Mgr.
Watson — U. H. Cozart, Jr., Pres.
Clark's — C. R. & Boyd Clark
New Liberty — Carl B. Renfro
Bob's Warehouse — Bob Clark
27
Williamston (one set buyers)
Rodgers Warehouse — Urbin Rodgers. Russell Rudgevs, Li-Iand Barn-
hill j_
New Dixie — C. Fisher Harris, J. Elmo Lilley
Wiiulsor (one set buyers)
Planters 1 & 2 — C. B. & B. U, Griftiu, Dave Xewsom
Heckstall-Spruills — Grover & B. H. Jernigan
MIDDLE BELT
Aberdeen (one set buyers)
New Aberdeen — Tom Faulkner
Planters — W. Fentriss Phillips
Hardee's — Hugh T. Hardee
Carthage (one set buyers)
McConnells — G. Hoover Carter, R. J. Brim. Jr.
Victory — Barn Ennis & Buck Layton
Diii-liam (three sets buyers)
Liberty — Walker Stone
Roycroft — H. T. & J. K. Roycroft
Star-Brick — A. L. Carver, Cozart, Curriu
Farmers-Planters — J. M. Talley, Howard Talley, Bob Dale, Sam Man-
gum
Ellerbe (one set buyers)
Farmers — Bill Maurer
Richmond County — Bud Rummage - -
Fuquay-Variiia (two sets buyers)
Big Top — Bill Talley & E. E. Clayton
New Deal — W. M., A. R. & A. L. Talley
Goldleaf — Sherrill Akins & J. W. Dail
Carolina — P. L. Campbell
Roberts — Joe, John & Earl Roberts
Growers-Dixie — King Roberts
Henderson (two sets buyers)
Moore's Big Banner — A. H. Moore, C. E. Jeffcoat
Carolina — M. H. Hugh, J. S. Royster
Farmers — W. J. Alston, Jr.
High Price — C. J. Fleming, C. B. Tumor
Liberty — George T. Robertson
Ellington — F. H. Ellington & Sons
liouisburg (one set buyers)
Big Franklin — S. T. & H. B. Cottrell
Ford's — Charlie Ford
Friendly Four — L. L, Sturdivant. Jnmes Speed
28
I
7
\
I
Oxlord (two sets buyers)
Banner— W. L. Mitchell, Jr., David Mitchell
Mangum-Farmers— T. B. Williams, Julian Adcock, S. B. Knott
Fleming No. 1 & 2— G. B. Watkins, D. T. Currin
Planters & Johnson— C. R. Watkins, C. R. Watkins, Jr.
Owens No. 1 & 2— J. S. Watkins, L. Gregory
Granville — L. S. Bryan, Jr., W. W. Yeargin
Sanlord (one set buyers)
Twin City 1 & 2— W. M. Carter, T. V. Mansfield
King Roberts 1-2-3— King Roberts. Jimmy Morgan
Castleberrys — C. N. Castleberry
Warrentoii (one set buyers)
Boyd's — W. P. Burwell
Centre No. 1 & 2— M. P. Carroll, E. W. Radford, E. M. Moody
Farmers — E. G. Tarwater
Thompson — C. E. Thompson
Currin's No. 1 — C. W. Currin
Currin's No. 2 — C. W. Currin
OLD BELT
Biirliiigton (one set buyers)
Carolina — Lee Russell, Bob Rainey
Coble — N. C. Newman, Curry King
Farmers — Bill & Jack McCauley
Grpeiisboro (one set buyers)
Greensboro Tobacco Warehouse Co. — R. C. Coleman, Mgr.
Guilford County Tobacco Warehouse Co.— H. P. Smothers, W. B. Hull
Madison (one set buyers)
New Brick— R. T. Chilton, S. F. Webster
Carolina— R. T. Chilton, S. F. Webster
Sharpe & Smith-Farmers — W. S. Smith, H. A. Fagg
Mebaiie (one set buyers)
Farmers 1 & 2 — Joe Dillard, Jule Allen
New Piedmont— A. O. King, Jr., Billy Hopkins, Hugh Strayhorn
Mt. -Airy (one set buyers)
New Farmers— Tom Jones, Buck White, O. L. Badgett F V Dearmin
Hunters — J. W., J. L. Hunter
Keidsvilk- (one set buyers)
Farmers— C. E. Smith, P. D. McMichael, D. H. Huffines
Leader-Watts— A. P. Sands, W. A. McKinney
Smothers— T. B. & J. M. Smothers
Browns— C. E. Smith, P. D. McMichael, D. H. Huffines
29
Roxboro (one set buyers)
Farmers — Lindsay Wagstaff, R. L. Hester
Hyco W. R. Jones, F. J. Hester, George Walker
Foacre — H. W. Winstead, Jr., Pres.
Planters No. 2 — T. O. Pass
Winstead — T. T. & Elmo Mitchell
Pioneer — T. T. & Elmo Mitchell
StoneviUt; (one set buyers)
Joyce's No. 1 & 2 — O. P. Joyce, Gary Pell
Farmers — F. A. Brown, P. M. Moorefield
Piedmont — J. J. Webster
Winston-Salem (four sets buyers)
Brown — R. W. Newsome, W. B. Simpson
Carolina-Star — G. H. Robertson, H. M. Bouldin
Growers — Floyd Joyce, W. G. Sheets, J. R. Pell, M. M. Joyner
Pepper No. 1 & 2 — Fred Owens, F. L. Kellam
Taylor — Paul Taylor
Big Winston — R. T. & J. F. Carter
Cooks No. 1 & 2 — B. E. Cook, William Fowler, H. A. Thomas
BURIiEY BEL,T
Asheville (two sets buyers)
Burley-Dixie No. 1 & 2 — R. A. Owen
Planters No. 1 & 2 — J. W. Stewart
Bernard-Walker Warehouse — James E. Walker, Mgr.
Day's — Charlie Day
Walkers Riverside Warehouse — L. J. Hill
Boone (one set buyers)
Mountain Burley No. 1 & 2 — Joe E. Coleman
Farmers Burley — Joe E. Coleman
Big Burley — King Roberts, R. E. Bullock
West Jefferson (one set buyers)
Trl-State Burley — C. C. Taylor, Rex Taylor
Farmers Burley — Tom Faulkner, Hoover Carter
30
Estimated Flue-Cured Exports by Major
Exporting Countries
By Calendar Periods, 1947-51, 1952-54, 1955-57, 195S-60, 1961-62, 1963 and 1964
(In million pounds, export weight)
'""""''' I9t7-5I 1952-54 f955-57 1958-60 1961-62 1963 1964*
^^"^''^ 20 33 37 33 42 36 50
Rhodesia, Zambia, Malawi 72 98 119 143 137 isi 223
^""^^^ ■- -40 53 78 74 95 115 130
Communist China** 1 23 100 98 25 10 10
°**>"^ - 11 23 31 31 39 51 57
TOTAL FOREIGN 144 230 365 380 388 393 470
TOTAL U.S 388 379 431 394 389 403 392
WORLD TOTAL 532 609 796 774 777 796 862
Percent U.S. 73 62 54 51 50 51 45
• Preliminary estimate,
!!L^'°i,"'!."'"'''' "iformation is available from Communist China or other CnmnmrU,
controlled areas; estimates for such areas are based on the S information available
Prices of Flue-Cured Exports From
Major Exporting Countries
U.S. cents per pounds, export weight
•^""""^ '950-54 1955-59 I960 1961 1962 1963
India
United States 63.4 71.1 77.2 79.4 SO.S 82.1
^^"^•l^ 55.6 61.3 71.1 72.9 67.1 71.7
Rhodesia-Western Zambia _ 58.1 57.6 57.1 59.2 54.S 63.3
31.9 32.2 36.6 32.0 30.6 36.1
31
DOMESTIC CIGARETTE CONSUMPTION
BY KINDS 1964
I
♦
Total Domestic Consumption
498 Billion Cigarettes
TVNews
OpenLibrary